Cues To Catching Deception In Interviews: A Brief Overview
Cues to Catching Deception inInterviews: A Brief OverviewNovember 2012National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of ExcellenceBased at the University of Maryland3300 Symons Hall College Park, MD 20742 301.405.6600 www.start.umd.edu
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of ExcellenceAbout This ReportThe authors of this report are START Special Projects Interns Rachel Gamson, Jessica Gottesman, NicholasMilan and Sitara Weerasuriya.Questions about the report should be directed to the authors at infostart@start.umd.edu.The authors would like to thank Gary Ackerman, director of START’s Special Projects Division, for hisguidance and feedback.About STARTThe National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) is supported inpart by the Science and Technology Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through aCenter of Excellence program headquartered at the University of Maryland. START uses state‐of‐the‐arttheories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve understanding of theorigins, dynamics and social and psychological impacts of terrorism. For more information, contactSTART at infostart@start.umd.edu or visit www.start.umd.edu.CitationsTo cite this report, please use this format:Gamson, Rachel, and Jessica Gottesman, Nicholas Milan and Sitara Weerasuriya. “Cues to CatchingDeception in Interviews.” College Park, MD: START, 2012.Cues to Catching Deception in Interviews
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismContentsIntroduction . 2Nonverbal Cues . 3Verbal Cues . 4Word Clues . 4Maximizing Cues by Increasing Cognitive Overload . 5Reverse Order . 6Unexpected Questions . 6Expectation of Detail . 7Conclusion . 7Figure 1. Sample Interview Deception Detection Guide. 9Cues to Catching Deception in Interviews1
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of ExcellenceNo man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar.- Abraham Lincoln1IntroductionIn the field of terrorism research, the task of collecting empirical data by interviewing terrorists, formerterrorists, and other extremists presents a host of serious methodological dilemmas. One obviouschallenge understood by researchers and law enforcement officials alike is the possibility that theinterviewee will attempt to engage in deception, which many fear is more acute in this context than inmany other social domains. Whether in the form of misrepresentation of facts, selective recall, or outrightlying, such deception may deeply hinder a researcher’s analysis and skew his or her conclusions.Therefore, how does one detect and respond to deception in an interview?Traditionally accepted indicators of lying, such as gaze aversion, fidgety hands or feet, vocal stress, andbody posture, in fact only weakly correlate with deception.2 Training in such behavioral detectiontechniques has rarely led practitioners to exceed 50% accuracy in lie detection;3 even if trainingincreases their level of confidence, practitioners rarely outperform non-trained individuals in their liedetection capabilities.4Certain researchers, on the other hand, offer more complex methods claiming accuracy rates of 90% orhigher.5,6 Regardless, the most current research reflects the recurring theme that “no one verbal cueindicates deception, but the probability of deception increases when clusters of deceptive indicators arepresent.”7 Moreover, practitioners who learn to watch for these combinations and interactions ofdeception cues have been known to significantly increase their accuracy in detecting deception.1“Abraham Lincoln quotes.” (n.d.) Thinkexist.com. Retrieved fromhttp://thinkexist.com/quotation/no man has a good enough memory to be a/220993.html.2Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., Skinner, L., & Frank, M. (2011, June). Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from -enforcementbulletin/june 2011/school violence.3Levine, T. R., Feeley, T. H., McCornack, S. A., Hughes, M., & Harms, C. M. (2005). Testing the effects of nonverbal behavior trainingon accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group. Western Journal of Communication 69 (3),203-217. Retrieved 8/8/10887248/testing the effects of nonverbal behavior training on accuracy in deception detection with the inclusion of a bogus training control group.pdf4Vrij, A. & Granhag, P.A. (2012) Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of AppliedResearch in Memory and Cognition 1 (2), 110-117. Retrieved ii/S22113681120003205Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., Skinner, L., & Frank, M. (2011, June). Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from -enforcementbulletin/june 2011/school violence.6Meservy, T. O, Jensen, M. L., Kruse, W. J., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (2008). Automatic extraction of deceptivebehavioral cues from video. In H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke, & B. Ganor (Eds.), Terrorism informatics: Knowledge managementand data mining for homeland security, Vol. 18 (495-516). New York: Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. Retrieved 676120/fulltext.pdf7Schafer, J. R. (2010). Psychological narrative analysis: A professional method to detect deception in written and oralcommunications. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.Cues to Catching Deception in Interviews2
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of ExcellenceThe following survey of recent research from psychology, criminology, and terrorism studies is intendedas a primer to better equip terrorism researchers to gather truth and reduce misinformation in theirresearch. The tools and recommended techniques have been formulated for deception detection in aninterview setting; other factors may come into play in assessing written, oral, or video recordingsemanating from extremists.Nonverbal CuesMatsumoto et al. identified five behavioral areas that provide cues to deceit: facial expressions, gestures,body language, voice, and verbal style.8 The first behavioral area is directly linked with identifying andinterpreting microexpressions. Microexpressions (e.g. of fear, anger, joy, etc.) are small indicators ofotherwise suppressed emotion which may appear unconsciously on a person’s face for a duration as briefas 1/25th of a second.9 A few microexpression examples and their correlating emotions include: 1) falsesmiles, indicated by a lack of bagged skin under the eyes and/or the absence of crow’s feet wrinkles; 2)anger, indicated by lowered eyebrows; and 3) fear, indicated by raised eyebrows.10 An “alert observerwill be able to detect such a facial expression” unless the observer blinks at the exact moment themicroexpression appears.11 For example, students at the FBI National Academy and the U.S. Coast Guardhave been trained to recognize the occurrence of microexpressions at a real-time rate of more than 70%and 80%, respectively.12Other research has looked beyond facial movements to other regions of the body. For example, liars oftensuppress “nervous” behaviors when lying, partly because the individual may self-consciously try tocontrol movement and partly because lying may create a greater cognitive burden than telling the truth.When one concentrates on a complicated task, other movements frequently cease, particularly motions ofthe feet, legs, hands, and fingers.13 Other possible bodily indicators of deception include compressed lips,chin withdrawal, and ventral denial (turning the front of the body away from the speaker), among manyother signs of bodily discomfort.14Meservy et al. used the observations of head and hand interactions to detect deception, citing acorrelation between deception and various movements. In his study, researchers videotaped participantsand analyzed frames to examine the relationship between hand movements and the distance from one’shead. Certain nonverbal indicators of nervousness and possible deception cues highlighted in this studyinclude rubbing, scratching, or preening around the head. This method of deception detection had a8Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., Skinner, L., & Frank, M. (2011, June). Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from -enforcementbulletin/june 2011/school violence.9Vrij, A. (1999). Interviewing to detect deception. In A. Memon & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (317326). pp. 321. New York: J. Wiley.10Ibid.11Ibid.12Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., Skinner, L., & Frank, M. (2011, June). Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from -enforcementbulletin/june 2011/school violence.13Vrij, A. (1999). Interviewing to detect deception. In A. Memon & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (317326). pp. 320. New York: J. Wiley.14Navarro, J. (2010, November 3). Opportunities to detect deception in a forensic setting. Psychology Today. Retrieved -settingCues to Catching Deception in Interviews3
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellencereported accuracy rate of 95.2%; however the study is only preliminary and still requires further indepth analysis.15Verbal CuesIf one is forced to rely only on either nonverbal or verbal cues for detection, verbal cues are generallyrecognized as the more reliable indicator. There is a stronger positive relationship between deceptivedetection accuracy and vocal cues such as speech errors, speech fillers, pauses, and voice tone.16 Themore attentive the listener, the more effective a detector he will be.Detection of verbal cues is especially important when conducting an interview remotely, such as byphone. In this case it is crucial for the interviewer to establish a baseline of the interviewee’s verbalspeech pattern on neutral topics.17As the interview progresses, the interviewer should be wary of repeated clusters of deviations from thebaseline pattern. Typical deceptive indicators include speech stumbles, increased pauses betweenanswers or sentences, filler words such as “umm,” “ahh,” and “uh huh” before responding to a question,and stalling for time by answering a question with a question or by asking the speaker to repeat thequestion.18 In the case of an evasive answer, a useful technique may be to ask for clarification with direct“yes” or “no” questions. If the interviewee pauses before answering,19 continues to avoid giving a directanswer, or begins an answer with the word “well,”20 the probability of deception increases. Clusters ofthese verbal cues indicate an increased probability of deception, although all indicators are more likely tobe relevant when compared with the subject’s verbal and nonverbal baseline.Word CluesPeople decisively select words when speaking or writing; by analyzing the choices of these words (or“word clues”), the “probability of predicting the behavioral characteristics of people” may increase.21 Inthe sentence “I walked quickly,” the use of the word “quickly” could indicate that the speaker is late for acertain event.22 This could possibly indicate conscientiousness and reliability; additionally, this couldindicate a tendency to respect the norms of society and to care about the expectations of others. As acautionary note, word clues are not by any means a definitive indicator; in this example, the use of15Meservy, T. O, Jensen, M. L., Kruse, W. J., Burgoon, J. K., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (2008). Automatic extraction of deceptivebehavioral cues from video. In H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke, & B. Ganor (Eds.), Terrorism informatics: Knowledge managementand data mining for homeland security, Vol. 18 (495-516). New York: Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. Retrieved 676120/fulltext.pdf16Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection. Psychological Sciencein the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. pp. 103. Retrieved from pspi 10 6.pdf17J. R. Schafer (2012, January 13). Detecting deception over the telephone. Psychology Today. Retrieved er-the-telephone.18Ibid.19Ibid.20Ibid.21J. R. Schafer (2011, June 17). Reading people by the words they speak: Word Clues present a noninvasive technique to effectivelyread people. Psychology Today. Retrieved from ey-speak22Ibid.Cues to Catching Deception in Interviews4
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence“quickly” could be due to other reasons - perhaps the speaker had felt threatened or was simply walkingto avoid the rain.In the sentence “I worked hard to achieve my goal,” the use of “hard” indicates that the speaker valuesdifficult goals. Additionally, “hard” could indicate that the person is able to defer gratification.23 Anotherexample of word cues can be seen in the sentence “I decided to buy that model.” The speaker’s choice toutilize the word “decided” shows that he evaluated the possible options before deciding; this also conveysthat this is a person who “thinks things through.”24 It is unlikely that the speaker is impulsive; animpulsive person would have likely said that he just bought that model. The use of “decided” is a possibleindicator that the speaker tends towards introversion as an extrovert would more likely have beenimpulsive.25Word clues, while not an outright detector of deception, “provide insights into a person’s thoughtprocesses or behavioral characteristics”;26 this could aid in detecting deviations from the norm whenattempting to detect deception.Maximizing Cues by Increasing Cognitive OverloadCognitive overload occurs when the mental load of an individual becomes too large for the workingmemory, thus decreasing one’s performance of complex tasks. Maintaining a lie is cognitively moredemanding than telling the truth; e.g. it is more difficult to maintain consistency and demonstrate detailin an imagined story. The mental strain posed by lying can lead to increased pauses between answers orsentences and speech stumbles. When liars are presented with complex questions, they tend to hesitate[more so than a truth teller] in order to give themselves time to formulate an appropriate answer.27Additionally, during an interview liars must inwardly suppress the truth28 and may also outwardlymonitor their movements in order to appear honest (e.g. maintaining eye contact and trying to avoidother traditional “giveaways”). The combination of these factors forces liars to utilize more cognitiveresources than truth tellers in order to maintain their “story,” thus leaving them with fewer availablecognitive resources and increasing their vulnerability. If cognitive demand is raised, liars may be unableto effectively cope with additional requests29 and inadvertently reveal their deception.An interviewer may manipulate this process to possibly detect deception, placing extra cognitive demandon the interviewee in order to increase the likelihood that noticeable verbal and nonverbal cues todeception will manifest. Some common cognitive stress/overload techniques include the reverse orderstrategy, asking unexpected questions, and establishing a high expectation of detail.23Ibid.Ibid.25Ibid.26Ibid.27Schafer, J. R. (2010). Psychological narrative analysis: A professional method to detect deception in written and oralcommunications. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.28Leal, S., & Vrij, A. (2008). Blinking during and after lying. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 32 (4), 187-194. pp. 188. Retrieved fromhttp://myweb.ncku.edu.tw/ p3896116/Blinking.pdf29Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and Opportunities in Nonverbal and Verbal Lie Detection. Psychological Sciencein the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. pp. 109. Retrieved from pspi 10 6.pdf24Cues to Catching Deception in Interviews5
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to TerrorismA Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of ExcellenceReverse OrderThe interviewer may ask the interviewee to describe events in reverse order. The effort required tomaintain a consistent lie combined with the mentally-taxing task of describing it in reverse order should,in theory, make deceptive verbal and nonverbal cues more obvious and foster more opportunity formistakes by the interviewee in the story’s timeline. Describing an event in reverse increases cognitiveload because “(a) it runs counter to the natural forward-order coding of sequentially occurring events and (b) it disrupts reconstructing events from a schema.”30In a psychology deception study, for example, college student participants were interviewed by a policeofficer about a staged theft.31 The video-taped interviews, in which the reverse order strategy wasutilized, were later played for police officers. The officers were able to detect lying 60% of the timecompared to 42% of the time in the control condition (chronological order), consistent with the greaterverbal and nonverbal cues determined to be present in the first group.32Unexpected QuestionsAnother method of increasing cognitive overlo
Western Journal of Communication 69 (3), 203-217. Retrieved from . detection accuracy and vocal cues such as speech errors, speech fillers, pauses, and voice tone.16 The more attentive the listener, the more effective a detector he will be.
Jacoby Custom Cues Kamui Tips Khamsin Designs Inc. (KDI) – Supplier of Official APA Apparel Lotus Vapes/Coker Custom Cues Lucasi Hybrid McDermott Handcrafted Cues Meucci Cues Mueller Recreational Products Nationwide Insurance OB Cues Omega Billiards Supplies Ozone Billiards Palmer Cues Poolaholic Apparel PoolDawg Predator Cues RT9 Designs Art .
Joint Publication 3-13.4. . deception target is the adversary decision maker. with the authority to make the decision that will achieve the deception objective. The deception target or targets are the key individual
which is followed by an analysis of Mother Courage and her children focusing on the aspect of self-deception and the sense of being sacrificed in this matter, and finally moves to its conclusion. Self-deception Deception is a dirty art of creating a false sense of trust and belief in others. Indeed, it is the art of legitimizing
Butler Lies: Deception in Managing Social Interactions Recent research suggests that deception is frequently used to create a virtual barrier between users and unwanted conversations [42]. In one focus group study, participants were asked about the norms and practices of deception and honesty in online chat and instant messaging. The responses
are dominated by emotional cues (hypothesis 1c), while standard brands place an emphasis on rational cues (1d). From the 181 advertisements of premium brands, 116 show more rational than emotional cues. In 11 advertisements, the same amount of both types of cues is given. Emotional
Benevolent Deception in Human Computer Interaction Eytan Adar University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109 eadar@umich.edu Desney S. Tan . Some in the HCI community [7, 24] have studied human-to-human deception in computer-mediated environments. For example, people may hide their presence in instant messaging clients to avoid unwanted .
Symantec Endpoint Protection and Symantec Managed Security Services customers benefit from 24x7 real-time SEP Deception monitoring and response by a global team of experts. Symantec is the only endpoint protection platform vendor offering deception. SEP Deception: Uses lures and baits for proactive security to expose and delay attackers.
Scuba Battle An adult underwater action story with a LOT of fetish elements ;-) (incl. rubber wetsuits and hoses, scuba peril, scuba fights, gassing, bondage elements, breath control play and various “drowning peril” elements) - Notes: Please be aware that I only have limited experience in writing stories
